September 8, 2026 by Doug McCurry from BooBook Education

The strengths and the weakness identified by BooBook markers in the English exam responses

Below is an aggregation or synthesis of the general comments of BooBook markers about student exam performance. Markers try to be encouraging as they can about the performance on students but their value as external markers (for students and teachers) is that they have no more to go on in making a judgement than the script they are reading.

One cannot discern from what little is published about the marking of the VCAA exam how the markers are briefed about making judgements. Some recent public comments by the Chief Assessor claim that students ‘never lose marks’, and it is implied that students do not perform well because they do not gain marks. While this seems a warm hearted and generous approach to the role of an external marker, it is not a realistic description of how judgements are made in external assessments of the quality of student performance.

While there should be no set of rules for deducting marks in marking for such weaknesses as misunderstanding of set questions, irrelevance, padding of responses with learned material, poor language control or unclear and confused expression, these characteristics (and many others) are clear deficits rather than immaterial or neutral. It is arguable that students scoring 4 out of 10 (and that is about 28% of students) and below will have one or more clear weaknesses that will decrease the recognition of other strengths.

The English examiners reports constantly state (it is about the only statement made in them about the marking process) that the marking is holistic. What this description is taken to mean in itself and in practice is never discussed to my knowledge. (I have read all the accessible reports since 2001 in the hope of learning about the marking.)

I will not here discuss the implications of the claim that marking is holistic rather than analytical or primary trait marking, but in operation holistic marking is best understood as an on-balance judgement about the strengths and weaknesses of a response. Weaknesses are not immaterial to this on-balance judgement. The reticence about weaknesses and the emphasis on ‘celebrating’ student success is one of the main reasons why VCAA exam reports are so anodyne and uninformative.

There are a range of ways one can envisage the grading of student work which I will not discuss here, but the notion that no student ever loses marks and that they only fail to gain marks in untenable. In both holistic and analytical marking (although not in primary trait marking) certain characteristics lose student marks from what might otherwise be their level of performance.

I make these claims because I want to draw attention of the importance of identifying negative characteristic that impact on the grading of student work by way of introducing the following synthesised comments below based on the cohort reports of BooBook markers about English exam responses.

We want our markers to be positive in their view of student work, but we do not take this to mean that they ignore weakness. Identifying weakness is a major reason for obtaining the input of external markers into the process of teaching and learning.

Below is a compendium of positive and negative comments made by our makers about student work. The comments are directed at students and students should know that the judgement of external markers will not be shaped by the concern for and personal knowledge of students as individuals that shape the reactions of their teachers.

The comments below are addressed to students and would be usefully review with them/

Overall comments on VCE English exam performance from BBE markers

Overall observations

Across the reports, students generally demonstrated sound knowledge and a reasonable understanding of what each section required. The major difference between satisfactory and stronger responses was often not how much students knew, but how precisely, selectively and purposefully they used what they knew.

A recurring weakness across all three sections was insufficient planning. Even a very brief plan can prevent repetition, irrelevant material, poorly sequenced ideas and rushed conclusions. Time management was also significant. Some students produced responses that were simply too short, while others spent too long on one section and compromised another.

Students should remember that examiners can only reward what is actually communicated on the page. Knowledge that is implied rather than explained, evidence that is not connected to an argument, or an interesting idea that does not answer the task is unlikely to receive its full potential reward.

Section A: Analytical response to a text

Strengths

Most students showed sound knowledge of their studied text and could refer to significant characters, events and ideas. Better responses demonstrated a broad knowledge of the text rather than relying on one or two familiar characters, moments or ideas.

The strongest responses moved beyond knowledge of what happens to consider why the author constructed the text in particular ways and what the text suggests about the ideas raised by the question. They developed a clear interpretation rather than merely agreeing with the proposition in the topic.

Where marks tend to be lost

The most important weakness is not answering the precise question asked. Students sometimes appear to recognise a familiar theme and then reproduce an essay about that theme rather than responding to the wording and implications of the actual topic. Material that does not address the question may demonstrate knowledge but will not necessarily earn marks.

A related weakness is a simplistic contention. Merely agreeing or disagreeing with the topic limits the scope of the essay. Stronger responses recognise qualifications, tensions and exceptions. They may largely agree with a proposition while demonstrating that the text presents something more complicated.

Students also lose opportunities when they:

• retell plot rather than analyse it
• describe characters rather than discuss what the author reveals through them
• make assertions without explaining them
• provide examples but fail to explain their relevance to the question
• rely on lengthy quotations rather than brief, carefully selected evidence
• use too few quotations or other precise textual references
• discuss ideas without considering the author's construction of the text
• neglect features specific to the form of the text
• write generic introductions and conclusions
• produce essays that are too short to develop an argument adequately
• rush the final paragraph or conclusion
• use memorised material that only partially fits the question.

Across the reports, there is a particularly clear distinction between description and analysis. Middle-range responses can know the text quite well but remain descriptive. Stronger students connect textual detail to the author's intentions and larger ideas.

How to prepare

Know the text in terms of ideas, relationships, patterns, structure and authorial choices, not simply plot.

Prepare a flexible bank of short quotations and precise textual references. Short quotations are usually more efficient than lengthy ones and are easier to integrate into analysis. The reports repeatedly indicate that insufficient textual evidence limits otherwise promising responses.

Practise responding to unfamiliar questions. Do not simply practise complete essays on predictable themes. A valuable exercise is to spend five minutes on a new topic developing:

1. a contention that directly answers the question
2. three distinct lines of argument
3. evidence for each
4. a complication or qualification that adds nuance.

Practise under strict time conditions.

In the examination

Read every word of the topic carefully. Identify its key terms and any qualification built into it.

Before writing, decide exactly what you think the text says about the question. Then make a brief plan. Three or four dot points may be enough. Failure to plan was repeatedly associated with more simplistic or poorly directed writing.

Each paragraph should advance the argument rather than simply cover a character or event. Ask:

What am I arguing? What evidence proves it? What does the author's construction of this evidence suggest? How does this answer the question?

Keep returning to the wording of the question. The examiner should never have to work out why a paragraph is relevant.

Section B: Creating texts

Strengths

Section B produced a wide range of effective responses. Many students wrote with fluency, clear structure and genuine personal engagement. Particularly successful pieces had an authentic voice and a clear sense of purpose.

Specificity was one of the clearest characteristics of stronger writing. Effective responses used precise details of people, places, sensations, experiences and events rather than broad statements. Vivid sensory detail and distinctive observations helped make writing convincing and individual.

Personal and reflective writing was often successful because students could draw on experiences they understood well. Strong pieces also tended to recognise complexity rather than presenting people, places or experiences as entirely good or bad.

Where marks tend to be lost

A major problem is generic writing. General statements about family, belonging, childhood, society or other broad ideas may be competent but can sound as though anyone could have written them. Strong writing creates a particular world.

Another major weakness is writing that feels pre-prepared. A prepared repertoire of ideas and techniques is useful, but students risk producing a piece that appears to have been written beforehand and awkwardly adapted to the title or stimulus. The reports specifically warn about recognisable templates and recycled material.

Marks or opportunities are also lost when:

• the connection with the title, stimulus or Framework is weak or merely tokenistic
• stimulus material is simply inserted or quoted rather than meaningfully incorporated
• the response lacks a clear purpose
• audience and form have not been considered
• events are listed without an organising idea
• a narrative has little conflict, development or change
• character motivation is unclear
• dialogue sounds artificial
• reflection becomes sentimental or clichéd
• persuasive writing makes broad claims without specific evidence
• an ambitious form is chosen without sufficient control
• an initially strong piece ends abruptly or predictably
• the response is too short to become a complete, developed piece
• expression becomes repetitive, clumsy or grammatically inaccurate.

Planning is especially important because weak planning often produces disconnected events, hurried endings and material that does not contribute to the overall purpose.

How to prepare

Do not memorise one finished piece. Instead, prepare resources for writing.

Develop a bank of experiences, observations, images, settings, characters, anecdotes, historical or social references and ideas that could be reshaped for different prompts.

Practise several forms, but identify the forms in which you write most successfully under time pressure. An unusual form does not automatically receive more marks. Sophisticated execution matters more than novelty.

Practise making writing specific. Replace:

We always spent time together as a family.

with the kinds of concrete details that allow a reader to see and hear that particular family.

Prepare to use stimulus material flexibly. The stimulus should help generate or deepen the piece, not sit awkwardly inside it as evidence that it has been used.

Timed writing is essential. The reports recommend deliberately practising within tighter limits so that the actual examination allows some time for rereading and editing.

In the examination

Use reading time to consider which possibilities the title and stimulus open up. Do not begin writing simply because the first idea seems workable.

Before writing, establish:

What am I trying to say? Who am I writing to? Why am I writing? What form will best achieve that purpose? Where will the piece end?

Spend a minute or two planning the movement of the piece. Knowing the ending before beginning is particularly valuable.

Use the stimulus meaningfully rather than repeatedly. A subtle, integrated use is generally stronger than continually referring back to the stimulus.

Make the writing particular. Give the reader names, places, objects, actions, sensory impressions, distinctive memories and revealing details.

Most importantly, create movement. Something should develop: an understanding, relationship, conflict, perception, argument or emotional position. A piece in which nothing changes can feel static.

Leave time to reread the ending. The reports repeatedly identify strong openings followed by hurried, clichéd or overly easy conclusions as a weakness.

Section C: Analysis of argument and language

Strengths

This was frequently one of the stronger sections. Students generally understood the broad contention and major arguments and could identify persuasive language. Many made effective use of quotations and discussed visual material.

Stronger students organised paragraphs around the development of the argument, with language choices analysed as part of the writer's strategy rather than treating each technique as an isolated device.

The best responses also recognised that audiences are not homogeneous. They considered how particular parts of an audience might respond differently and recognised shifts in strategy, tone and positioning.

Where marks tend to be lost

The central weakness is technique spotting without analysis.

Identifying a rhetorical question, inclusive language, metaphor or image is only the beginning. Students need to explain how the choice assists the argument, why it is appropriate at that point, and how it is intended to influence the particular audience. Reports repeatedly note responses that identify what is happening without adequately explaining how or why.

The opposite problem also occurs: students summarise the argument but do very little language analysis. Section C requires analysis of both argument and language.

Other weaknesses include:

• failing to identify the argument driving a paragraph
• discussing techniques as isolated items
• summarising quotations rather than analysing them
• making vague statements about ‘the audience’
• assuming that every audience member will react identically
• exaggerating audience reactions, such as claiming that a mild technique will make readers feel extreme guilt, anger or shame
• repeatedly saying that the writer ‘positions’ the audience without explaining how
• misidentifying tone or inventing excessive tone shifts
• ignoring visual material
• describing an image without connecting it to the argument
• discussing visual techniques without analysing significant details
• overlooking the background information and therefore misunderstanding context, audience or contention
• failing to recognise changes in argument or strategy across the piece
• using quotations without explaining their function
• spending too long on a minor technique
• using informal or imprecise analytical vocabulary
• repeating the same sentence structures and analytical verbs.

A particularly important weakness is treating audience response as certain. Students cannot know that an audience will feel or behave in a particular way. It is more accurate to analyse how the writer seeks, encourages, invites or attempts to produce a response.

How to prepare

Practise identifying the argument structure before analysing individual techniques.

For any practice piece, first establish:

Who is communicating? To whom? In what context? What do they want the audience to think, feel or do? What are the major arguments? How does the strategy change as the piece develops?

Then identify the language and visual choices that help each stage of that strategy.

Move away from memorising long lists of persuasive techniques. A student who accurately analyses ordinary word choice, pronouns, imagery, evidence, syntax, tone or a visual detail will generally demonstrate more understanding than one who inaccurately labels an obscure technique.

Practise analysing combinations of techniques. Writers rarely persuade through isolated devices. Strong analysis considers how several choices work together.

Practise visual analysis as part of argument analysis, not as an isolated paragraph added at the end.

In the examination

Read the background information carefully, more than once if necessary. Misreading the context can distort the entire analysis.

Annotate the piece according to argument and strategy, not merely techniques.

A useful paragraph logic is:

Argument → specific language/visual evidence → how it works → why it is used here → intended effect on this particular audience → contribution to the writer's broader persuasive strategy.

Use short quotations and analyse particular words within them.

Be precise about audience. Instead of repeatedly saying ‘the audience’, identify the relevant group where possible.

Treat visuals as part of the persuasive text. Select particular details and explain how they reinforce, complicate or extend nearby written arguments. Strong responses explicitly connected visual details with the surrounding argument.

Do not analyse every technique. Select the most significant material and analyse it well.

What most commonly costs marks across the examination?

Across the three sections, the recurring problems can be reduced to several broad principles:

1. Not answering the exact task. A knowledgeable response can still be weak if it answers a different question.
2. Description instead of analysis. Retelling what happens, identifying a technique or recounting an argument is not the same as explaining significance.
3. Generality instead of specificity. Strong responses use precise evidence, details and examples.
4. Insufficient explanation. Do not expect the examiner to make the connection for you.
5. Weak planning. This produces repetition, irrelevant material, confused argument and rushed endings.
6. Formulaic or pre-prepared writing. Preparation should provide flexible knowledge and skills rather than a memorised response.
7. Poor selection. More material is not necessarily better. Select evidence and ideas that directly advance the response.
8. Failure to develop complexity. Strong responses recognise tensions, qualifications, changing perspectives and different possible audience responses.
9. Insufficient editing. Awkward sentences, missing words, repetition and unclear expression can obscure otherwise good thinking.
10. Poor time management or incomplete responses. A sophisticated unfinished response cannot demonstrate the same range of achievement as a controlled, completed one.

The central lesson is therefore:

Do not try to show the examiner everything you know. Show the examiner how well you can use what you know to answer the particular task in front of you.

This last principle as the strongest common message running through the cohort feedback. In Section A it means answer the question rather than reproduce knowledge of the text; in Section B, create a purposeful piece rather than reproduce prepared material; and in Section C, analyse the writer's persuasive strategy rather than reproduce a catalogue of techniques.